Mordhau
 TheKingInTheNorth
Mercenary
  • Likes received 523
  • Date joined 20 Aug '17
  • Last seen 3h

Private Message

Mercenary 444 523

@ThunderDuck said:
90 minutes.png

If this is real, I'm 99% sure the person who wrote it is online on his/her cellphone more than 90 minutes lmao.

Mercenary 444 523

It's basically brainwashing tbh. "Turn straight or suffer and burn and be tortured for eternity, in the name of the LORD amen." A big stretch to call it therapy imho.

Mercenary 444 523

Doesn't know how to rhyme.

Mercenary 444 523

@Survii said:

aight motherfuckers im back from my ban

Ah, so that's why it was so quiet in here.

Mercenary 444 523

@Punzybobo said:
Interesting articles for those who believe that the universe is in fluctuation.

https://www.space.com/39815-hubble-suggests-universe-expanding-faster-study.html

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-hubble-finds-universe-is-expanding-faster-than-expected

http://www.iflscience.com/space/why-universe-accelerating/

I don't know what you mean by fluctuation, can you explain? Because the fluctuation I've heard people talk about has nothing to do with the universe expanding faster and faster.

Mercenary 444 523

On second thought, let's not visit the EU. Tis a silly place.

Mercenary 444 523

@yourcrippledson said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@Punzybobo said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:
I think you need to clearly define the god you're using the Ontological argument to argue for the existence of. Is it the Christian god? Or the Muslim god? Or is it like a god that isn't actually a conscious being? Or is it someone programming a simulation like the Matrix?

That's not the point of the argument, but I believe in the Christian God.

You don't think disclosing the type of god that you think the Ontological argument results in is relevant?

No, that's not the point of the argument.

So it is a pointless argument. Thank you lol.


I wish you weren't so incredibly stupid.

Why don't you enlighten me. I have literally never been presented with an argument where the point of the argument was the argument in itself. You just refuse to reveal a god at the end of it because you know that would basically end it right then and there. And it is obvious.


Yeah, I'm sorry you're so foolish that you don't realize the point of the ontological argument isn't to prove a God in particular but just to deduce that God exists.

He said "a-priori assumptions" ASSUMPTIONS

So what? His point in the first politics thread was stupid anyway because I can reason and deduce God but I don't know exactly what he is. So I look to historicity and coherence with real world religions. THAT is reasonable, not dismissing the ontological argument because some other people have.

"So what?"? So you don't know how to begin reality based logic, if you think you can reason using assumptions that aren't based on any kind of reason.

Okay, you're not smart, I get it. Here's a syllogism for why I think I should argue for Gods existence.

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist

    There, not so hard.

A cause =/= God.

If everything has a cause, what caused God (inb4 he's just always existed, in which case, why can't the singularity before the big bang always have existed).

cat.png

Nice cat.

This is long, but entertaining. I would listen to this while gaming or something... Anyway in the first 3 minutes, you'll get the gist. Basically, Sye skips all the bs and immediately boils it down to what every Theist resorts to in the end lol. And never really evolves his argument from there over the entirety of the 2 hour debate... Apologists think he is a good debater

Oh God I watched that years ago and had repressed it somewhere where it couldn't bore me ever again.

Mercenary 444 523

@Punzybobo said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:
I think you need to clearly define the god you're using the Ontological argument to argue for the existence of. Is it the Christian god? Or the Muslim god? Or is it like a god that isn't actually a conscious being? Or is it someone programming a simulation like the Matrix?

That's not the point of the argument, but I believe in the Christian God.

You don't think disclosing the type of god that you think the Ontological argument results in is relevant?

No, that's not the point of the argument.

So it is a pointless argument. Thank you lol.


I wish you weren't so incredibly stupid.

Why don't you enlighten me. I have literally never been presented with an argument where the point of the argument was the argument in itself. You just refuse to reveal a god at the end of it because you know that would basically end it right then and there. And it is obvious.


Yeah, I'm sorry you're so foolish that you don't realize the point of the ontological argument isn't to prove a God in particular but just to deduce that God exists.

He said "a-priori assumptions" ASSUMPTIONS

So what? His point in the first politics thread was stupid anyway because I can reason and deduce God but I don't know exactly what he is. So I look to historicity and coherence with real world religions. THAT is reasonable, not dismissing the ontological argument because some other people have.

"So what?"? So you don't know how to begin reality based logic, if you think you can reason using assumptions that aren't based on any kind of reason.

Okay, you're not smart, I get it. Here's a syllogism for why I think I should argue for Gods existence.

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist

    There, not so hard.

A cause =/= God.

If everything has a cause, what caused God (inb4 he's just always existed, in which case, why can't the singularity before the big bang always have existed).

cat.png

Nice cat.

Mercenary 444 523

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:
I think you need to clearly define the god you're using the Ontological argument to argue for the existence of. Is it the Christian god? Or the Muslim god? Or is it like a god that isn't actually a conscious being? Or is it someone programming a simulation like the Matrix?

That's not the point of the argument, but I believe in the Christian God.

You don't think disclosing the type of god that you think the Ontological argument results in is relevant?

No, that's not the point of the argument.

So it is a pointless argument. Thank you lol.


I wish you weren't so incredibly stupid.

Why don't you enlighten me. I have literally never been presented with an argument where the point of the argument was the argument in itself. You just refuse to reveal a god at the end of it because you know that would basically end it right then and there. And it is obvious.


Yeah, I'm sorry you're so foolish that you don't realize the point of the ontological argument isn't to prove a God in particular but just to deduce that God exists.

He said "a-priori assumptions" ASSUMPTIONS

So what? His point in the first politics thread was stupid anyway because I can reason and deduce God but I don't know exactly what he is. So I look to historicity and coherence with real world religions. THAT is reasonable, not dismissing the ontological argument because some other people have.

"So what?"? So you don't know how to begin reality based logic, if you think you can reason using assumptions that aren't based on any kind of reason.

Okay, you're not smart, I get it. Here's a syllogism for why I think I should argue for Gods existence.

  1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe began to exist

    There, not so hard.

A cause =/= God.

If everything has a cause, what caused God (inb4 he's just always existed, in which case, why can't the singularity before the big bang always have existed).

Mercenary 444 523

@Punzybobo said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

you're one to talk about people not knowing how to debate.

You said this:

The argument could admittedly be CIRCULAR, and even then, that does not make the argument null because you want it to be like that.

I win.

31957699_1737472816334027_265980207880470528_n.png

At worst I made a small mistake of which definition to label the fallacy within your argument.

At best, you've admitted your argument relies on a fallacy... Means your argument is flawed, and you admitted as much. You lose. You have to be atheist now.

No faggot, I don't, you have to be a theist because you couldn't prove that the argument did not bring anything new. It is a deductive proof so it's no duh that the conclusion relies on the premise. And now you're doubling down thinking the argument somehow fails because it is circular. I said you would have to prove that it does not bring anything new which you can't. You're unwilling to debate the ontology of God because you either know it's logically coherent or you don't even know where to start with it. So fuck off forever or you yourself should bring something new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections

What are you trying to say with this?

I'm trying to say you can't reason something into existence based on a-priori assumptions, and that this has been known for centuries. It leads to logical absurdities which are logically coherent but demonstrably false in reality. But we've been over this in the first politics thread.

Mercenary 444 523

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

@yourcrippledson said:

@Punzybobo said:

you're one to talk about people not knowing how to debate.

You said this:

The argument could admittedly be CIRCULAR, and even then, that does not make the argument null because you want it to be like that.

I win.

31957699_1737472816334027_265980207880470528_n.png

At worst I made a small mistake of which definition to label the fallacy within your argument.

At best, you've admitted your argument relies on a fallacy... Means your argument is flawed, and you admitted as much. You lose. You have to be atheist now.

No faggot, I don't, you have to be a theist because you couldn't prove that the argument did not bring anything new. It is a deductive proof so it's no duh that the conclusion relies on the premise. And now you're doubling down thinking the argument somehow fails because it is circular. I said you would have to prove that it does not bring anything new which you can't. You're unwilling to debate the ontology of God because you either know it's logically coherent or you don't even know where to start with it. So fuck off forever or you yourself should bring something new.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Criticisms_and_objections

Mercenary 444 523

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:
Pretty sure it's a nice time to start talking about how Neo-Liberalism is bad, dont you agree?

It's better than a lot of alternatives being proposed in this thread, but yeah, not a fan.

How about a Monarchy with strong economic protectionism?

I'm not a fan of monarchy but if you're talking ceremonial only like most modern monarchies, then I don't mind that much. I'm living in one currently and my country is doing pretty good.

Protectionism on the other hand seems like a bad idea. I see a global market as being very helpful in maintaining stability and thereby is an asset in the prevention of war. Since the creation of the EEC, one of the first steps toward the EU, Europe has been the most peaceful in history. I would like to see this expand on a global scale and that requires limited protectionism.

But Neo Liberalism is a necessary consequence of the free and global market and its longterm consequences are less favourable than what I have suggested. Or will you disagree?

I think you can have regulations, just not regulations that prevent or skew trade on a global scale. Or do you mean something else by protectionism?

Yes I want these regulations to skew trade on a global scale if they are benefitial towards the nation. Material wealth is a secondary concern.

I want nothing to do with souless consumerism, I want no vain wars, I want no fraudulent democracies, I want no extranational powers telling me what I can or cant do with my wealth or with my being, I want none of their liberal indoctrination or their dissolution of the family and social cohesion, etc.

I want none of these because they interfere with what is trully good, for me, my fatherland and to a certain extent the wider world.

Things that are beneficial towards your nation are not always beneficial for global stability, which in turn affects your nation as well.

Except keeping the world unstable and my nation sovereign is actually more benefitial toward my nation than otherwise.

It's not helpful to shut yourself out of the global market because you lose most of your international influence, unless you become a (military) bully and then it's a matter of time before the others have had enough.
Except it is helpful and that my nation wouldnt have any international influence anyhow. If you're wondering if breaking off is my nation getting conquered, just ask yourself what would foreign powers have to gain from conquering a plot of land with few natural resources and little strategic advantage?

I'm against indoctrination, fraud, war and (I would call it) 'mindless' consumerism as well, of course, but I believe most of those cannot be prevented by, or will even be increased through, protectionism and nationalism. To see the negative impact of protectionism you only have to look at the international response to the steel tariffs. That is ONE tariff. Imagine the reaction if you pull out of the global market completely.

"I'm against indoctrination, fraud, war and (I would call it) 'mindless' consumerism as well" - than why the hell are you supporting Neo Liberalism? That's the same as planting weed seeds and complaining you have weeds growing.

"but I believe most of those cannot be prevented by, or will even be increased through, protectionism and nationalism." - Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estado_Novo_(Portugal) , with the exception of international forces trying to forcefully liberate it's colonial powers Portugal remained for 40 years in peace and with a blossoming economy that was utterly unimaginable in the free market republic that existed prior. If we can make it happen once we can make it happen again.

I'm not supporting Neoliberalism, though. Neoliberalist economic models are much more deregulated than what I would like.

Mercenary 444 523

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:
Pretty sure it's a nice time to start talking about how Neo-Liberalism is bad, dont you agree?

It's better than a lot of alternatives being proposed in this thread, but yeah, not a fan.

How about a Monarchy with strong economic protectionism?

I'm not a fan of monarchy but if you're talking ceremonial only like most modern monarchies, then I don't mind that much. I'm living in one currently and my country is doing pretty good.

Protectionism on the other hand seems like a bad idea. I see a global market as being very helpful in maintaining stability and thereby is an asset in the prevention of war. Since the creation of the EEC, one of the first steps toward the EU, Europe has been the most peaceful in history. I would like to see this expand on a global scale and that requires limited protectionism.

But Neo Liberalism is a necessary consequence of the free and global market and its longterm consequences are less favourable than what I have suggested. Or will you disagree?

I think you can have regulations, just not regulations that prevent or skew trade on a global scale. Or do you mean something else by protectionism?

Yes I want these regulations to skew trade on a global scale if they are benefitial towards the nation. Material wealth is a secondary concern.

I want nothing to do with souless consumerism, I want no vain wars, I want no fraudulent democracies, I want no extranational powers telling me what I can or cant do with my wealth or with my being, I want none of their liberal indoctrination or their dissolution of the family and social cohesion, etc.

I want none of these because they interfere with what is trully good, for me, my fatherland and to a certain extent the wider world.

Things that are beneficial towards your nation are not always beneficial for global stability, which in turn affects your nation as well. It's not helpful to shut yourself out of the global market because you lose most of your international influence, unless you become a (military) bully and then it's a matter of time before the others have had enough.

I'm against indoctrination, fraud, war and (I would call it) 'mindless' consumerism as well, of course, but I believe most of those cannot be prevented by, or will even be increased through, protectionism and nationalism. To see the negative impact of protectionism you only have to look at the international response to the steel tariffs. That is ONE tariff. Imagine the reaction if you pull out of the global market completely.

Mercenary 444 523

@Monsteri said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:
Since the creation of the EEC, one of the first steps toward the EU, Europe has been the most peaceful in history. I would like to see this expand on a global scale and that requires limited protectionism.

This won't work simply because other places care little about the individual's wages or quality of life. The country that cares the least about its people will net the biggest profit margins for the companies based there, so what happens is that industry will move to a low-wages area and outcompete the ethical companies at home. That's just not a good thing to encourage.

That's why international trade agreements (at least on the European model) come with a set of rules to prevent exactly that kind of thing. This is what I mean by regulation but not protectionism, and that's why I don't want the neoliberal economic model.

Mercenary 444 523

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:
Pretty sure it's a nice time to start talking about how Neo-Liberalism is bad, dont you agree?

It's better than a lot of alternatives being proposed in this thread, but yeah, not a fan.

How about a Monarchy with strong economic protectionism?

I'm not a fan of monarchy but if you're talking ceremonial only like most modern monarchies, then I don't mind that much. I'm living in one currently and my country is doing pretty good.

Protectionism on the other hand seems like a bad idea. I see a global market as being very helpful in maintaining stability and thereby is an asset in the prevention of war. Since the creation of the EEC, one of the first steps toward the EU, Europe has been the most peaceful in history. I would like to see this expand on a global scale and that requires limited protectionism.

But Neo Liberalism is a necessary consequence of the free and global market and its longterm consequences are less favourable than what I have suggested. Or will you disagree?

I think you can have regulations, just not regulations that prevent or skew trade on a global scale. Or do you mean something else by protectionism?

Mercenary 444 523

@vanguard said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:
Nobody will take Antifa seriously, even when they do become violent, because they are hypocrites. They are fighting against oppression by being oppressive.

Poor nazis are being opressed am I right, let them express themselves freely!

It is not hypocrisy, antifa never deffended free speech as far as I am aware, the idea is to not let fascists organize themselves.

Thanks to liberals like you that things like Nazi Germany happens. "Antifa are the real fascists" lmao, this is epic

You're being a bit fursty right now. I never said anything like "Antifa are the real fascists" and I don't think you have any reason to assume I think they are more dangerous than Nazis.

Mercenary 444 523

@ImATomato said:

@TheKingInTheNorth said:

@ImATomato said:
Pretty sure it's a nice time to start talking about how Neo-Liberalism is bad, dont you agree?

It's better than a lot of alternatives being proposed in this thread, but yeah, not a fan.

How about a Monarchy with strong economic protectionism?

I'm not a fan of monarchy but if you're talking ceremonial only like most modern monarchies, then I don't mind that much. I'm living in one currently and my country is doing pretty good.

Protectionism on the other hand seems like a bad idea. I see a global market as being very helpful in maintaining stability and thereby is an asset in the prevention of war. Since the creation of the EEC, one of the first steps toward the EU, Europe has been the most peaceful in history. I would like to see this expand on a global scale and that requires limited protectionism.

Mercenary 444 523

@ImATomato said:
Pretty sure it's a nice time to start talking about how Neo-Liberalism is bad, dont you agree?

It's better than a lot of alternatives being proposed in this thread, but yeah, not a fan.

Mercenary 444 523

Nobody will take Antifa seriously, even when they do become violent, because they are hypocrites. They are fighting against oppression by being oppressive.

Mercenary 444 523

Are you sure? People are waking up

Yeah I'm sure. Fascists and Neo-Nazis have been legally marching through our streets since not that long after WW2. Democratic freedom allows that even though people would love to ban them, you're a protected minority just like all the other minorities protected under a democracy.